Historical forms of the prevalence of legal structures in armed conflicts

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (03) ◽  
pp. 234-243
Author(s):  
Evgeny Martynenko
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Cultural Relativism ◽  
Significant Progress ◽  
Legal Structures

Despite the significant progress made by modern international law in regulating the use of force in international relations, armed conflicts remain a daily reality even after the adoption of the UN Charter. The nature of the legal regulation of armed conflicts is determined by humane values that are common to all mankind and do not depend on considerations of cultural relativism.

Private Military Companies and the Jus Ad Bellum

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Ralby
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Real World ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
Private Companies ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Private Military Companies

This chapter examines the use of private military companies (PMCs) to deal with international armed conflicts and the prohibition of the use of force in relation to such entities. It considers the jus ad bellum implications of private military contracting in international law and international relations. The chapter explains what PMCs are and what they do, drawing a distinction between mercenaries and various terms used to refer to private companies hired by states in lieu of armed forces. It presents case studies where PMCs have engaged in prohibited or lawful use of force at the behest of a state, or where they may be used by a state in situations that run counter to jus ad bellum. Three real-world examples are highlighted. The chapter concludes by assessing the implications of using PMCs in armed conflicts for state responsibility with respect to the prohibition on the use of force.

The Justification of War and International Order

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Order ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Pertinent Literature ◽  
Modern Times ◽  
History Of ◽  
Early Modern Times

The history of war is also a history of its justification. The contributions to this book argue that the justification of war rarely happens as empty propaganda. While it is directed at mobilizing support and reducing resistance, it is not purely instrumental. Rather, the justification of force is part of an incessant struggle over what is to count as justifiable behaviour in a given historical constellation of power, interests, and norms. This way, the justification of specific wars interacts with international order as a normative frame of reference for dealing with conflict. The justification of war shapes this order and is being shaped by it. As the justification of specific wars entails a critique of war in general, the use of force in international relations has always been accompanied by political and scholarly discourses on its appropriateness. In much of the pertinent literature the dominating focus is on theoretical or conceptual debates as a mirror of how international normative orders evolve. In contrast, the focus of the present volume is on theory and political practice as sources for the re- and de-construction of the way in which the justification of war and international order interact. The book offers a unique collection of papers exploring the continuities and changes in war discourses as they respond to and shape normative orders from early modern times to the present. It comprises contributions from International Law, History and International Relations and from Western and non-Western perspectives.

The Justification and Critique of Coercion as World Order Politics

2021 ◽  
pp. 489-500
Author(s):  
Christopher Daase ◽  
Nicole Deitelhoff
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
World Order ◽  
International Order ◽  
Physical Force ◽  
Coercive Measures ◽  
Economic Coercion ◽  
Normative Expectations

The present chapter turns from the justification of war (the use of force) to the justification of coercion. It proceeds on the assumption that to stabilize the current international order requires less ‘legitimate force’ and more ‘legitimate coercion’ since in most institutions the enforcement of norms—as the very basis of order—does not only or even primarily rely on physical force but on various forms of political and economic coercion. The chapter distinguishes various forms of coercion and reconstructs debates in International Law and International Relations with regard to their legality, legitimacy, and effectiveness. Doing so, Christopher Daase and Nicole Deitelhoff intend to broaden the debate on world order by redirecting the focus from the use of force to the use of less violent coercive measures. Specifically, the chapter introduces a concept of sanction as a means of communicating normative expectations to the normative community rather than executing punishments.

The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Schrijver
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

This chapter focuses on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international relations. After discussing pre-Charter attempts to restrict states’ freedom to resort to warfare, it examines the emergence of a normative doctrine on a bellum justum. It considers the history of Article 2(4) and the other articles of the Charter that touch on the use of force and outlines exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, including the so-called Uniting for Peace procedure. It examines the interpretation of Article 2(4) in the practice of the General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court of Justice), together with its inclusion in a number of multilateral treaties. Finally, it assesses the question whether the use of force after 1945 conforms to the object and purpose of Article 2(4), as well as the legal status of the prohibition to use force in contemporary international law.

From Knives to Kites: Developments and Dilemmas around the Use of Force in the Israeli–Palestinian Conflict since ‘Protective Edge’

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilly Moodrick-Even Khen
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
The Self ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Law ◽  
Israeli Occupation ◽  
Self Defence

This article analyses the legal regulation of the use of force in international law in the context of three emerging Palestinian forms of struggle against Israeli occupation: the Knife Intifada, the disturbances at the border, and the launching of incendiary kites. It discusses what legal paradigms or concepts should regulate the type and level of force used in each situation – a question that is complicated by various dilemmas – and finally, appraises the Israel Defence Forces policies tailored in response. The article evaluates the applicability of two legal paradigms regulating the use of force in military operations – (i) the conduct of hostilities and (ii) law enforcement – as well as the concept of personal self-defence in international law and the escalation of force procedure. While the Knife Intifada clearly falls under the law enforcement paradigm, the disturbances at the border and the launching of incendiary kites raise more difficult legal questions. Categorising them under a paradigm of law enforcement is less straightforward, and may have undesirable ramifications for safeguarding humanitarian interests. The article argues that the use of force in the disturbances at the border and the incendiary kites cases should be regulated by the concept of self-defence and escalation of force procedure, and that the application of the self-defence concept should be adapted, mutatis mutandis, to situations of law enforcement and to situations of hostilities.

The protection of civilians mandate in UN peacekeeping operations: reconciling protection concepts and practices

2013 ◽  
Vol 95 (891-892) ◽  
pp. 517-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haidi Willmot ◽  
Scott Sheeran
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Physical Protection ◽  
Peacekeeping Operations ◽  
Un Peacekeeping ◽  
The Common

AbstractThe ‘protection of civilians’ mandate in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations fulfils a critical role in realising broader protection objectives, which have in recent years become an important focus of international relations and international law. The concepts of the ‘protection of civilians’ constructed by the humanitarian, human rights and peacekeeping communities have evolved somewhat separately, resulting in disparate understandings of the associated normative bases, substance and responsibilities. If UN peacekeepers are to effectively provide physical protection to civilians under threat of violence, it is necessary to untangle this conceptual and normative confusion. The practical expectations of the use of force to protect civilians must be clear, and an overarching framework is needed to facilitate the spectrum of actors working in a complementary way towards the common objectives of the broader protection agenda.

scholarly journals The Legality Of Nato'S Action In The Former Republic Of Yugoslavia (Fry) Under International Law

2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-925 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine Chinkin
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Territorial Integrity ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations Charter

The use of force has been prohibited in international relations since at least the United Nations Charter, 1945. Article 2 (4) of the Charter states:All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the United Nations.

scholarly journals International Environmental Protection in Armed Conflicts: Traditional Legal Regulation and Interpretation Novelties

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 84-95
Author(s):  
N. A. Sokolova
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Protection ◽  
Natural Environment ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Wide Range

The paper is devoted to international legal protection of the environment during armed conflicts. The author emphasizes that armed conflicts, both international and non-international, continue to be one of the most serious threats to a healthy environment. An armed conflict taking place in the environment invariably poses a threat to ecosystems.The author summarizes that in international law there are special norms for the protection of natural environment during armed conflicts. At the same time, increasing the level of protection requires a clearer definition of the scope of application of customary law and the further development of treaty rules. While the objectives of protecting the natural environment are linked to the survival and protection of civilians, recognition of environmental protection during armed conflict as such constitutes an important trend. International law calls on States to enter into agreements that provide for additional protection of the natural environment during armed conflicts. The concept of “protecting the natural environment” in international humanitarian law refers to a wide range of obligations that can help protect the natural environment or its parts from damage. A high threshold for potential harm continues to pose the risk that such protection is not fully applicable in practice. There is an obvious tendency to use the potential of the principles of international environmental law when applying the norms of international humanitarian law. Thus, even in cases where the assessment of new means and methods of warfare does not provide scientific certainty with regard to their impact on the natural environment, this does not absolve the parties to the conflict from taking appropriate precautions. It is not enough that there are important rules of international humanitarian law protecting the natural environment during armed conflict; they need to be better disseminated, implemented and enforced, as well as validated and clarified.

scholarly journals The Use of Force in International Law

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Written Text ◽  
Law And Politics ◽  
Extensive Coverage ◽  
The Us ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Complex Question ◽  
Invasion Of Iraq

The international law on the use of force is one of the oldest branches of international law. It is an area twinned with the emergence of international law as a concept in itself, and which sees law and politics collide. The number of armed conflicts is equal only to the number of methodological approaches used to describe them. Many violent encounters are well known. The Kosovo Crisis in 1999 and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 spring easily to the minds of most scholars and academics, and gain extensive coverage in this text. Other conflicts, including the Belgian operation in Stanleyville, and the Ethiopian Intervention in Somalia, are often overlooked to our peril. Ruys and Corten's expert-written text compares over sixty different instances of the use of cross border force since the adoption of the UN Charter in 1945, from all out warfare to hostile encounters between individual units, targeted killings, and hostage rescue operations, to ask a complex question. How much authority does the power of precedent really have in the law of the use of force?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document